Understanding Others' Viewpoints

One thing that bothers some atheists is the idea that they should show any consideration or civility towards beliefs and ideas they consider obviously ridiculous. If something is patently false and absurd, why not just treat it as such, say that it is false and absurd, and then move on? There is some merit to that position - but only up to a point.

A poem by Charles Bukowski and posted at Philosophical Conversations by Gary Sauer-Thompson makes the case for dismissing people's absurd beliefs, but also shows how limited such dismissal can be:

we are always asked
to understand the other person's
viewpoint
no matter how
out-dated
foolish or
obnoxious.

Yes, put that way it does sound absurd. On the other hand, how can you come to the conclusion that a viewpoint is out-dated, foolish, or obnoxious unless you have some understanding of it - both of the position generally and of this particular manifestation. No, it's certainly not necessary to have a complete understanding of it... but if you have no understanding of it, it doesn't seem as though any evaluation (negative or positive) is justified.

but age is the total of
our doing.
they have aged
badly
because they have
lived
out of focus,
they have refused to
see.

not their fault?

whose fault?
mine?

What are the chances that the other person thinks the same of you? Pretty good, actually. Maybe you're right. Then again, maybe they are right. Both of you are convinced, but that conviction alone is no arbiter of truth or rationality. Being reasonably convinced not only requires sound arguments in defense of your position, but also sound arguments against outside critiques - that, in turn, requires some understanding of alternative positions. Once again, you can't dismiss the "foolishness" of others without understanding that "foolishness" first.

There also seems to be a great concern with assigning blame here - it must be someone's "fault," it appears. But why must there be fault? Why must we identify someone to blame? If beliefs aren't choices, perhaps there is no easy "blame" to assign after all. It's probably not often justified to accuse a person of "refusing" to see what you see. You may think that what you see appears obvious and unmistakable, but others say the same thing about ideas that you don't "see."

Are you blind? No, you honestly disagree with their conclusions. Well, isn't is possible that they honestly disagree with yours?

Read More:

• Books on Science and Skepticism
• Skepticism & Critical Thinking